Saying "Sayonara" to SNAP: Executive director Barbara Dorris (l) and Regional director Joelle Casteix (r)
How the mighty have fallen. Executive Director Barbara Dorris, Regional Director Joelle Casteix, and other longtime board members have resigned from their leadership positions at the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP, marking yet another significant downfall for the once-influential organization.
Their departures come after word that SNAP has finally settled a high-profile lawsuit that exposed lawyer kickback schemes, a callous exploitation of abuse victims, and SNAP's abiding ideological hatred of the Catholic Church.
News of the settlement and the departures were first reported by Brian Roewe at the sympathetic National Catholic Reporter, who buried the story on a late Friday afternoon.
Is anything left?
After last year's shocking lawsuit surfaced, longtime SNAP stalwarts and media blowhards David Clohessy and Barbara Blaine (SNAP's founder) abruptly resigned. The lawsuit – filed by SNAP's own former fundraising director Gretchen Hammond – may have been the straw the broke the camel's back. Also around the same time, a falsely accused priest in Michigan sued SNAP for defamation.
Indeed, the period leading up to all of the resignations is replete with examples of SNAP's rogue behavior and reckless actions in their campaign of hatred against the Catholic Church:
- In August 2016, a federal judge ruled that SNAP maliciously defamed priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and ordered that SNAP "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees" for defaming him.
- In 2014, after years of attacking the Church for alleged "inaction" on abuse cases, it was revealed that SNAP did not call police or alert Church officials even though it knew "for several weeks" about a shocking sex abuse allegation against a Chicago priest. Instead, it held a circus-like press conference.
- SNAP published the email addresses and personal phone numbers of accused priests to incite harassment against them.
- In 2013, we exclusively reported that SNAP founder Barbara Blaine admitted that she not only wrote a letter on behalf of a doctor arrested with kiddie porn and but also outlined a plan to cover it up.
- SNAP sued for the right to harass and intimidate parishioners at Sunday Mass.
- In 2012, we revealed that the vast majority of SNAP's funding comes from kickbacks from Church-suing tort lawyers.
- In 2012, we exclusively reported that SNAP's Clohessy admitted under oath in a deposition that SNAP had released false information to the press.
- In 2012, Clohessy actually accused Philadelphia's Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of faking his cancer to avoid appearing at a deposition. However, within 36 hours of Clohessy's callous remark, Bevilacqua passed away.
Indeed, SNAP's intense animus against the Catholic Church cannot be overstated. As SNAP continues its rapid decline into oblivion, some measure of justice will have been served for the many priests and other innocent victims of its reckless and malicious campaign of defamation and hatred.
[See also: **TheMediaReport.com Special Report** Facts About SNAP That Will Shock You]
And let me add the thousands of priest molesters and bishop protectors that lie hidden in church archives or those very archives of evidence destroyed or refused by the cult to be exposed. Add to that those that remain free because of Statute of Limitations, creeps that dropped dead before trials, sympathizing prosecutors or judges, (possibly catholics or afraid of the cult), refusing to prosecute and those protected by the Vatican and it's many excuses and finally those hidden in monasteries or retired in catholic rest homes because they were just to frail or sick to be tried. They said they wished and wanted to live the rest of their lives in peace and be left alone, so they could pray their worthless prayers to their blessed ever-virgin idol, they claim they never worship, after destroying the lives of many innocent children. Wait until God and Jesus gets ahold of all you creeps and your excusers and enablers. Righteous Justice will finally be served and the eternal price will finally be paid, Judgment Day.
Yes, SNAP does appear to be in a headlong dive to oblivion. Hopefully they are now on borrowed time. God moves in mysterious ways, carefully weaving his tapestry, usually out of our sight But there is no doubt he uses dedicated and talented people…. to assist him. One such person is Dave Pierre, who has laboured long and hard to expose the lies and duplicity of this group. Basically they were modern-day rabble rousers…. and hate-filled bigots at that. Try to imagine Gretchen Hammond, as she accepted her settlement check. She would have folded it neatly and dropped it in her purse. Then closed her purse with a satisfying…. SNAP.
So lovely for you to have God on your side, Malcolm. Are Santa the Tooth Fairy and the Easter bunny also plugging for you?
Gretchen Hammond, hired by SNAP because she's a trans person and Jewish, SNAP must appear "liberal' in order for the false flag to work, has received a judgment on her case? If SNAP really were "liberal' why would they risk the possibilities that arise from a wrongful firing? SNAP must have really made a massive transition in the past years from when I and other gay people had to call them out again and again on there hate-filled behaviors AGAINST gay people including towards gay victims, that they hired Ms. Hammond then fired her.
Again can anyone name anything that SNAP has done that has helped victims? Really name one thing.
Nice job of brown nosin' there Malcolm.
Why are threats of murder allowed in these comboxes? Why do they go unreported?
Because you dumb sh** you can't kill someone who doesn't exist. Anonymity allows invisability. How can i kill what's invisible?
JR's threatening words, directed at Publion, were clearly meant to intimidate him. When that happens…. most people…. well….they generally fall silent. Thankfully it didn't work with Publion. Perhaps JR should go on a holiday, and leave his computer and other devices at home. Because that might refresh JR…. and help him put things into their proper perspective..
Invisible people treatened with death. Oh the horror. LOL!
Pliar a ghost that feigns sober reflection. LMFAO! Hey Casper, you are supposed to be a friendly Ghost. Jesus said you should. Lol!
They're allowed because it gives the church the opportunity to point their fingers at someone else and say, "There goes the monster." Publiar can claim it's "very usefully revealing and instructive" and demonstrates the opponents "mentality", while taking the proverbial "SPOTLIGHT" off of the pedophile perverts and sick creeps of the cult. It opens the path for the cult to claim that they're the good, holy and one true church, when in reality they're nothing but disgusting "wolves in sheep's clothing". Why do you think the lying hierarchy and publiar lies and falsely accuses me? Same reason. There's the 'monster' bad guy 'Dan', not realizing that they'll be judged for their many cowardly lies and their sickening defending and excuses for the creeps in their cult. Pulling the wool over the eyes of their blind sheep and convincing them with more lies that they're not idolaters and worshippers of wickedness. Servant of the One True God, not your idols and worthless gods and goddesses. DESPICABLE LYING HYPOCRITES!!
This is my response to KenW on April 16, 2018 at 11:12am.
Dan, you're right. God will judge in the end and what you call a cult,will be shown, despite it's sinful members to be the true Church founded by Christ Jesus. Are members of your church sinless?
Hey Phillip, Maybe if you read the bible, you can find, in the end, the perfect description of your true cult founded by your ever-virgin "Queen of Heaven" (lie), described in perfect detail;
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–They will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Rev 21:8
What could be more 'vile', 'sexually immoral' and idolatrous than pedophiles, pederasts and perverts and their cult of lying ('liars') excusers. Get clear of them before you end up swimming with them in their fiery lake of burning sulfur. These unrepentant serial child molesters of innocent children aren't just your normal sinners who deserve the forgiveness of an Almighty Pure and Perfect God. They are nothing but filthy scum. servant of the Lord
P.S. And Heaven help those who defend, minimize and spread all kinds of lies and deception in defense of such creeps and their evil cult of hypocrites.
SNAP's setting up groups of victims with no therapists involved as therapists only allowed victims to air our stories to each other. No healing there save for realizing we weren't as alone as we thought we were. That doesn't heal much.
But think about it. A survivors' group that never demanded compensation for its membership. That would be like a union that never demanded higher wages but only spoke about how hard it is to be a low paid worker.
As should come as a surprise to no regular reader, the implosion of SNAP has prompted yet another extended dump of JR’s favorite bits (the 14th at 219PM):
That SNAP is a “false-flagged” tool of the Church and always has been / putting SNAP right up there with – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – “Lourdes or the Shroud of Turin”;
That “you have to be a fool” not to “believe that SNAP and Jeff Anderson … weren’t working for the church”; readers will notice that JR offers – once again – not a single shred of evidence or even plausible thought as to how SNAP and Anderson were tools of the Church; his claim here is that they self-destructed (on orders of the Church, of course) by making “purposeful error after willful error” (in order to collapse themselves).
As I have proposed, the matrix of elements that supported the Stampede lost the ability to maintain the oh-so-necessary presumptive illusion that the Church was surely a nest of (fill-in-the-blank), and that presumption (to question it would re-victimize the ‘victims’, of course) served as the flood-tide that lifted all boats over the glaring problems and questions raised by the Stampede.
Readers will also note JR’s signature form (or rather de-form) of rational argumentation: he merely tosses out epithets at anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:
That Jeff Anderson was “THE only tort lawyer for 30 years” – which would come as news to the numerous other torties involved in these cases around the country (including the one who got JR’s claims grandfathered into the big LA abuse settlement of a dozen or so years ago);
That the Stampede (deceitfully fronted for the Church, in JR’s eructations, by SNAP and Anderson) was a “success”; it was a “success”, surely, for anyone who wanted to play the game that SNAP and the torties set up – but how it was a “success” for the Church (that lost anywhere from three to four billion dollars) remains to be seen. (Regular readers will recall that JR’s bit to cover this problem is that there are gazillions of ‘victims’ out there who have never gotten paid, though there is no evidence of their existence that he can demonstrate; they are thus as real as – oh, say – leprechauns.)
That only in California were allegants really nicely remunerated; this would come as news to other dioceses and archdioceses around the country that have also had to make huge payouts;
“What a fraud” indeed. And as to who might “have no morals no shame and no sense of responsibility” (sic) and who also qualifies as “an evil joke” … readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:
That the “Rico laws were never brought to bare” (Freudian slip on JR’s part here?); perhaps they were never brought to bear because the government attorneys realized they did not apply and no case brought on the Rico basis in this matter could succeed;
Ditto that “no national class action lawsuits were ever made against the Church”; perhaps because even torties realized that no case brought on such a strategy could succeed, especially if the cases actually had to stand up in court rather than be settled out of court (as almost all of them were);
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:
And then – apparently trying to do some pre-emptive damage and spin control, JR will try to characterize anything I might ‘type’ as – had you been waitttinggggggggggg forrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – “lies”.
And that – yet again – the (oh-so-presumptively genuine) “victims” were merely “herded” like dumb animals into the toothy arms of torties promising big payoffs with little danger of real examination;
And that the mainstream media never “investigated” SNAP because – had you been waittttingggg forrr itttttt? – the Church owned the land under the major media’s buildings. As I have said, the media knew a gripping (and ongoing and lucrative) soap-opera when they saw one (and SNAP and the torties very creatively obliged on this score with their assorted stories); and the whole Stampede fit in nicely with the general liberal agenda to weaken the influence of religion in the nation’s culture; and the ‘trial attorneys’ (i.e. torties) constitute a significant professional demographic supporting the Democratic agenda of ‘secularism’.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:
And that few bishops and priests went to jail “for their crimes”; perhaps because few allegants really opted for filing criminal charges (rather than the far more directly lucrative settlement in civil suit) and few DA’s figured that they could make a case out of the stories on offer and – for that matter – perhaps there were just not as many “crimes” as the Stampede would eagerly have everyone presume.
As always, whenever JR bleats “that’s the whole truth” any reader is well-advised to start counting one’s pocket change.
And in another bravura display of his apparently fundamental ignorance of how things work, JR tries to pooh-pooh the Church’s costs of settlements by bleating that the insurance companies paid a lot of it. It apparently has escaped him that if one makes a very large claim or a number of large claims on a policy, then either the policy is going to be cancelled or the premiums are going to skyrocket into the very-large category very quickly.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:
Oh, and he’s still on his murderous-fantasies jag as well. At this point, regular readers may well imagine that these do not represent or do not only represent a rhetorical strategy on JR’s part, nor only a display of a long-standing characteristic of JR personally (i.e. if he doesn’t get what he wants he’s gonna getcha you betcha), but also constitute an indication of an intensifying descent into something best left for direct and focused clinical intervention.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1136PM:
Here ‘Dan’ too will take the opportunity to toss up a misch of his usual stuff, a) starting with the presumption of “thousands” of clerical “molesters” and “protectors”, then moving on to b) the presumed “thousands” not being prosecuted because of Statutes of Limitations or death or “sympathizing prosecutors or judges” who c) were “possibly catholics and afraid of the cult” or who d) died or were “hidden” … or perhaps taken away somewhere by Martians or leprechauns why not?
But wait. There’s more. We also get such familiar bits as e) the “blessed ever-virgin idol”.
And then ‘Dan’ gives us another bravura performance of his God-imitation, delivering a deliciously-fuming intimation of Hell and so on … which ‘Dan’ doth know for his bathroom mirror tells him so.
And regular readers might recall that in the Fall of last year New York torties, approaching the end of a Statute-of-Limitations extension period, had to buy an overt advertisement in The New York Post soliciting stories and claims urgently because time was running out. In the event the New York Metro area yielded only 180 or so fresh stories and claims after an entire year of that SOL extension.
Response to publiar's April 16, 2018 @ 4:27pm -
Publiar's back! I state obvious truths and facts in regards to Catholic Child Abuse and it's many cover-ups, and he thinks he can sarcastically claim they're just fantasies, displaying once again his childish stupidity and immature ignorance. Followed up with his "bathroom" toilet trash. For someone who passes himself off as being somewhat intelligent, you sure can often respond like an immature baby (i.e. " 'Dan' doth know for his bathroom mirror tells him so."). I bet you're proud of your little girlie man nursery rhymes. Grow up, peewee!
Dave Pierre reminded us how former SNAP director David Clohessy had attacked the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacua, back in 2012. Clohessy accused the Cardinal of faking his illness, to avoid answering questions, during deposition. But within 36 hours the elderly Cardinal died, from his long-standing cancer affliction. This accusation must be straight out of the Playbook. Because Cardinal Pell (Australia) has been accused, by subtle inference, of exaggerating his heart condition. So even any delay, caused by ill-health, is used to further smear a Catholic leader. But getting back to Clohessy, the outfit he was working for, SNAP, is looking very sick indeed, and may not survive. But the Church that Cardinal Bevilaqua was working for will continue it's pilgrimage… as it has done for the last 2000 years.
Because you dumbshit. Its no crime to threaten to murder someone who doesn't exist.
Ding Dong
SNAP is Gone
Which old SNAP?
The Wicked SNAP
Ding Dong The Wicked SNAP is gone
Just another catholic witch-hunt, in an attempt to take the SPOTLIGHT off of their church and it's plethura of disgusting unrepentant child molesting clergy and their lying excusers and defenders.
As I have said before in regard to JR’s recent ‘murder jag’ in comments: I don’t take them personally and actually think they are very usefully revealing and instructive.
We now see a further nicely-vivid double display (the 17th at 1249AM and 12254AM) of how JR’s mind works to justify himself: since I am ‘invisable’ – doncha see? – then it’s not a (prosecutable) crime to threaten to murder me.
First, this would require one to presume that anonymity equals some form of invisibility, which itself requires one to presume that being in any way ‘invisable’ (or more accurately, anonymous) equates to being non-existent as a person.
Which would also mean that in any case where the police discover an unidentified but clearly murdered corpse then they can’t declare the crime a murder because the clearly-murdered corpse has not been identified by name (and thus – being ‘invisable’ – cannot be demonstrated to be a human corpse).
P, You as a corpse? Please my dream come true. Get out my dancing shoes.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 1249AM and 1254AM:
Of course, the astute reader will also quickly realize that if JR’s bit here is to be taken seriously, then he effectively admits that he has for quite a few years been expending time and energy in controversy with a non-existent entity (i.e. myself, anonymous and – if his ‘logic’ is to be accepted – non-existent as a person).
What we see here is a (probably long-practiced) word-game deployed in the service of self-exculpation. Ideas, concepts and meanings are simply toyed with like a child’s blocks to make whatever little imaginary structure suits his fancy and his purpose.
So for readers, we get yet another instructive demonstration of the type of mentality we are dealing with, which I would say is also the mentality that a high-school administration had to deal with 55 or more years ago and – while I yield not a whit of approval for the SNAP operation – what SNAP had to deal with during the time JR was associated with it.
The Stampede was structured precisely to give such a mentality and game-plan as much play as possible and one must bear this in mind whenever assessing claims and stories and allegations.
Commenter ‘Malcolm Harris’s mention of Cardinal Pell’s case (the 16th at 959PM) dovetails with the most recent update from Down-Under:
As some readers may recall, a year or more ago Cardinal Pell (who had fallen afoul of Pope Francis by objecting to some of the papal initiatives a few years ago) was accused of assorted and long-ago sexually-abusive acts back in Australia / he took a leave of absence from the Vatican and went back to Australia / which at the time was in the midst of a government inquiry into sexual abuse of the young (although not – if memory serves – in public, government-run or government-sponsored institutions) / and earlier this year his ‘case’ made its way through the stages of the Aussie legal system to a month-long set of hearings that was held in March in order for a magistrate to determine if the various claims merited a court trial.
Despite the numerous glaring problems of inconsistency and outright impossibility in the various claims, stories and accusations, the magistrate presiding over the hearing opined a day ago that she was inclined to let the case proceed to a jury trial. To do so she and the prosecutors seem to have fallen back onto a curious legal standard of evidence: unless an accusation has been “annihilated” in pre-trial hearing, then the case should go to a jury.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Malcolm Harris’ comment of the 16th at 959PM:
As opposed to a standard such as ‘preponderance of evidence’ or ‘clear and convincing proof’ or ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’, the prosecution and the magistrate claim that the applicable standard at this point is ‘annihilation’, which is not a formal legal term but rather more of a literary or rhetorical term. (Although there is a formal legal term ‘anniented’ – meaning: made null, abrogated or brought to nothing – that is not the specific legal term the magistrate has used.)
Does the magistrate simply wish to dodge responsibility and kick the case upstairs, as it were? Are the prosecutors perhaps still hoping that if they keep this thing going long enough somebody – anybody – will feel moved to ‘come forward’ (as the Victimists like to say nowadays) and throw some better wood on the fire?
At any rate, readers may wish to consult the article ‘War against Cardinal Pell’, archived at the Catholic League site. This article simply lists the various accusations and how they have already been discredited in one way or another.
The magistrate’s final decision is to be rendered on May 1st. Perhaps the strategy is to see how public opinion reacts in the next two or three weeks and go from there.
Oh yeah! Let's take the word of big-mouth catholic defender and excuser Bill Donahue as he attacks all the victims of the pure and holy cardinal Pell, with the usual excuses that it all happened years ago, as if that alone is proof that accusations are false. You jackasses haven't heard that victims of child abuse on average take 30 or 40 years to come clean and be believed and can end up having serious lifelong problems?
And if card Pell, as big-mouth Bill claims, "has a stellar record of combating this problem" in regards to "sexual abuse", it's only based on the fact that the church is plagued with clergy child abusers. What better way to take the "spotlight" off of yourself than to thirty years later claim you're against the very sins your guilty of.
John Gill once stated back in the 1700's, " And whoremongers; all unclean persons, that indulge themselves in impure lusts, in fornication, adultery, and all lewdness; as the clergy of the church of Rome, who being forbidden to marry, and being under a vow of celibacy, and making great pretensions to chastity and singular holiness, give themselves to all lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness."
My guess is that your church has been plagued with perverted hierarchy for it's 1700 or so years of existence, so please don't include Simon Peter as the first of your creepy pompous popes. When big-mouth Donahue and all the rest of you catholic excusers wish to claim that it's all past history and long ago, well I guess there's some truth to that considering the systemic perversions, greed and wickedness of your cult has gone on throughout church history.
I’ll go down the list of ‘Dan’s most recent stuff in the order they appear going down the comment-list.
On the 17th at 1126PM ‘Dan’ tries to solve his problems by (slyly and manipulatively) presuming that he merely doth “state obvious truths and facts” … and if you don’t drink that Kool-Aid then the rest of his bit collapses. Monstrances and Hosts as sun-god worship and moon-god worship and Mary as a pagan idol and so forth … such “truths and facts” can only be “obvious” to a mind like ‘Dan’s.
Ditto when he tries to characterize my “’bathroom’ toilet trash”. My imagery in that regard only refers to his bathroom mirror, where – as I have often said – he appears to conduct his séances with the entities that grant him his oh-so-speshull ability to discern “obvious truths and facts”, including that of his own very-speshullness.
That quotation involving “tells him so” is actually from an old Protestant and fundie jingle. So ‘Dan’ can go and deliver his invective against “little girlie man nursery rhymes” to the people from whom he’s lifted most of his stuff.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will simply dig into his 3×5 pile and riff in a general sort of way on the Catholic League and Bill Donahue.
But the article itself to which I referred simply goes down the long list of problems with the various stories and witnesses and so on, ticking off the problems – and they are not insignificant problems at all.
Thus and as so very often, his game here is to evade the actual and the factual by tossing up a “smokescreen” (to use one of JR’s favorite terms) of general free-floating invective in the hopes of distracting any reader from sober consideration and instead ‘stampeding’ (to use one of my favorite terms) readers into an emotional state that is also free-floating and evasively disconnected from any actual consideration of the realities.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:
And he lards on as many 3×5 bits from the standard Victimist Playbook as he can muster.
Thus that it takes oodles of years before a victim might decide to ‘come forward’: when you are robbed coming out of a bank with a withdrawal does it take that long to decide you might want to inform the police? Well, one might say, being robbed isn’t the same thing. And that point is itself rather instructive: if something doesn’t appear to be a crime to begin with in the first place, then … well, where does that take us?
And how then is a claim to be treated in the legal system, coming oodles of years later? The Victimist solution to that utterly intractable and abyssal problem has been to simply ‘believe the victim’ no matter what the claim and then just let ‘outrage’ govern the process and outcome of adjudication. One draws perilously close to totalitarian show-trial jurisprudence very quickly.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:
Then another 3×5 bit that also seeks to deploy a specious imitation of logic: even if Cardinal Pell has been “combating this problem” then that only ‘proves’ that there is a huge problem just like ‘Dan’ says.
There exists and always has existed the danger of sexual abuse in any human organization; and the Church as human organization no doubt has had instances of it. The more interesting point is that the Church has taken more steps than any other organization on the planet to deal with this all-too-human problem.
I tried my best to ignore your ignorance and stupidity, publiar, and especially your belief that Big-Mouthed Bill has factually disputed anything, when all I read is the excuses and defense of another perverted catholic leader and the usual cowardly blaming of victims.
Once again, and I repeat, an institution which makes claims of being Holy, Pure, True, Godly, etc., should not have any vile, lusting or lewd pedophile or pederast creeps among it's ranks. Once found they should have had them immediately laicized and imprisoned, not coddled, hidden and then secretly transferred the perverts to other dioceses.
Once again, for you to compare yourselves to other human organizations, after claiming to be so pompously holy and attempting to place blame on others, is cowardly, hypocritical and plagued with nothing but excuses, lies and denials. And to claim "the Church has taken more steps than any organization on the planet" is just more of your lies, and yet they should have done more seeing that they are absolutely the worst homosexual pedophile cult, even among secular organizations.
Must you continually lie and make excuses for your disgustingly vile and corrupt cult?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:
One thinks of a similar dynamic in the matter of slavery: slavery of one sort or another has existed in just about all human societies throughout history; captives were taken in war and – when not executed – reduced to slavery; the Moslem empires and regimes not only took captives for slaves in their own wars but also ran slave-trading enterprises for many centuries (one recalls Thomas Jefferson’s efforts against the slave-trading economy of the so-called ‘Barbary pirates’); and the history of intra-African slave-trading, as well as the complicity in providing slaves to purchasers from abroad, has yet to receive sufficient notice (does anyone really think that for centuries small bands of European slave-traders penetrated freely and frequently to the heart of the sub-continent to take slaves and transport them without incident out to the distant seashores where ships awaited?).
The historically novel point is that the British government in 1807 ordered the Royal Navy to stop the maritime slave-trade ships and eventually drew the US government of the day into assisting in that mighty task. It was not the tribal chiefs who decided to put a stop to the lucrative business. Nor, for that matter, was it the decidedly Protestant entrepreneurs of the Northern states who had engaged in what is historically called the Triangle Trade.
What is your "similar dynamic", that slavery was as cruel as your cults molesting of young innocent children? No! Slavery was cruel, but nothing so disgusting as the harm your cult caused to thousands of families and their little ones. DESPICABLE AND INEXCUSABLE!!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:
Then ‘Dan’ once again tries on the Wig of Educated Competence, this time quoting from one John Gill, a very early 18th-century English Baptist preacher of strongly Calvinist theological leanings. No doubt one can rummage through the post-Reformation era for bundles of such vivid and catchy invective – and are we to imagine that there were no such miscreants among that day’s Protestant clergy and faithful?
(We note in this bit, interestingly, the old Protestant idea that Catholicism’s clerical celibacy is somehow a – or perhaps the – primary cause of Catholic clerical sexual issues. But if that is to be taken as accurate, then there would be very few – if any at all – sexual miscreants among the other world religions or non-Catholic variants of Christianity, since just about all of them do not require celibacy.)
So once again, let's point the accusatory finger at others, so we can claim the nasty "miscreants" of our cult aren't any worse than the rest. First off, most Protestant clergy went after teen girls, and didn't rape and molest little boys and babies, not that this makes them innocent either. Secondly, this is the reason why I belong to none of the religious cults and phony false churches of the world. You're all plagued with deceiving lying hypocrites, claiming some false form of Godliness, when nothing is further from the truth.
And I'm under no opinion that ending "catholicism's clerical celibacy" would solve any of your cult's problems. You would still be unrepentant idolaters, greedy, cowards, sexually immoral and blatant liars, all sins in themselves worthy of Hell's Fire. I've told you before that married respected catholic store owners (males) in the neighborhood of my youth were having sex with minor boys on the side. Clerical celibacy would change absolutely nothing. Your leaders are perverts and pedophiles and have done little or nothing to change their status, other than to deny and deceive.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:
Thus, then, ‘Dan’ will conclude by favoring us with his “guess”, and readers may judge it as they may.
And he further tries to make his “guess” do double-duty, tossing in a bit about Simon Peter not being the first Pope. Aside from the fact that a) nobody is familiar with whatever personal human failings Simon Peter demonstrated in his life whether pre- or post- his encounter with Christ then b) we are still faced with the pericope (never addressed by ‘Dan’) wherein Christ gave Peter the Great Commission (i.e. to be the rock upon which Christ would build His church and to be given the power to bind and loose sins).
And we can also add c) the abyssal problem posed for the ‘Dan’-fundie approach by Paul’s admission that the good he wishes to do he does not do and the evil he wishes to avoid he yet commits.
I have addressed and I'm not denying Christ's statement in regard to Peter being the rock, but some claim that Christ was speaking of himself and Peter didn't resemble much of a rock when he denied knowing Jesus. What I am denying is that there is no way that Peter was in any way the first catholic pope. No mention of any popes in the Bible, and how dare you claim the humbled Peter to be one of your pompous, deceiving, fish-headed phony, wolves in sheep's clothing. Absolutely nothing in the Word would lead even an imbecile to come to such a stupidly ignorant conclusion, but not surprising you have.
Another one of your ignorant conclusions that Paul remained a horrible sinner after he came to Christ. You're taking his statements completely out of context to what he was teaching in this chapter (Romans 7) and the rest of his teachings of how with Christ we become a new creature, turning our backs on our sinful lives and striving to live pure, clean and changed lives. Perfect? No, but surely not insistent idolaters, greedy, disgustingly vile, sexually immoral perverts and let's not forget compulsive liars, like yourself.
Why must you think you can interpret Biblical wisdom, while belonging and living the life of a lying, deceived and delusional catholic? servant of the Lord
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1056PM:
Here ‘Dan’ apparently tries a come-back to the question posed by commenter ‘Ken W’ (the 16th at 1112AM) as to why threats of murder are allowed in the comments section.
“They’re allowed” – ‘Dan’ doth hereby declare – because (we must try to follow the bouncing ball here) by this site permitting those clearly-demonstrated violent lucubrations “it gives the church the opportunity to point their fingers at someone else” as being a “monster”.
This excuse of ‘Dan’s relies – of course – on the acceptance of his presumption that the Church is fatally riddled with ‘monsters’ in the form of “pedophile perverts and sick creeps of the cult”, which assertion is hardly demonstrated to be true but is absolutely essential if ‘Dan’s personal shtick and agenda are to retain any semblance of accuracy and relevance.
And as always, the bottom-line turns out to be a familiar old marketing strategy: having (he hopes) disposed of this particular rival to the claim of being divinely-commissioned and divinely-authorized, ‘Dan’ can then present himself for that status. Or – perhaps more accurately – ‘Dan can then presume himself to hold that status … and if you don’t agree, then God’ll getcha you betcha.
Believe I answered to enough of your garbage today.
Publion, on the 17th, is probably correct regarding how there may be some confusion between the word 'annihilated' and the word 'anniented'. Don't know if it's the Magistrate herself, or the court reporters, who have got it wrong? Will only say that standards in higher education have been falling steadily for the past 30 years. However the word 'annihilation' can mean…. "to totally defeat in argument or contest". Well, having read Phil Donohue's article called 'The War against Cardinal Pell'… then to my mind 'annihilation' may well be appropriate. Because the known charges appear to have been totally defeated, on the defence's evidence, already placed before the Magistrate.
Hey Malcolm, "Phil Donahue" was a talk show host. Maybe Big-mouthed Bill can do that for his next gig, although the only audience that would listen to him is brain-washed or deceived catholics, who enjoy listening to a fellow catholic liar, deceiver and manipulator of all truth. ONE BIG LYING CATHOLIC HYPOCRITE AMONG MANY! Yes, that would include you publiar!
On the 22nd at 153AM ‘Dan’ – with nothing significant to put up – merely tries to make some hay on the fact that ‘Malcolm Harris’ mistakenly typed the name of Phil Donahue instead of Bill Donahue (of Catholic League).
He then tries to make his bit do double-duty by tossing up yet again his bit about “one big lying catholic hypocrite among many!” (scream-caps omitted) … without, but of course, demonstrating any hypocritical lie that he would like readers to think that I have put up.
What gives you the mistaken impression that you're the one who puts up anything significant? You claim I can't demonstrate any "hypocritical lie[s] that [I] would like readers to 'think' that [you] have put up". Your stuff is so full of double-talk poppycock. You're such a liar that you even wish to lie and deny that you are one. You've personally slandered and lied about the liars in your cult who falsely accused me. You deny, twist, lie, manipulate and deceive the facts of Catholic (priest and bishop) Child Abuse. You think we're all stupid or is it just that you're so used to brainwashed catholics sucking up to your ignorance and lame stupid excuses. You think you're so smart that you can change the meaning of the Bible and most catholics will agree with your poor translations. Like I've quoted before, "Deceiving others but being themselves deceived." You're the worst catholic liar in your cult that I've ever come across, and believe me that I've run into many. I imagine that this must console you, Hypocrite.
One item to note to lighten things up a bit, the members of SNAP's board would certainly provide interesting subject matter for any PhD candidate in psychology. The manner of their approach is near obsession and thier tactics makes one wonder if their motivations are more subliminal. Possibly even a mini-series on LOGO channel would be appropriate to their mission.
Why do catholics so easily see the faults in others, but are completely blind to recognizing their own more serious and filthy faults? "The church" hierarchy, deceivers, excusers and publiars would "certainly provide interesting subject matter", and yet the only one interested in delving into that disgusting darkness would be Satan and his demons. Catholics, run from them while God is giving you the chance. Beware not to take His patience and kindness for granted. You'll never find forgiveness until God forgives you and through Jesus, and he alone, helps you change your life. How can a hierarchy plagued with pedophiles, pederasts and perverts and their excusers give to you forgiveness when they are of the Unforgiven. Do not be deceived. Satan was known as the Great Accuser and Deceiver of the brethren. Sounds just like the attributes of a publiar. servant of the One True God
No Malcolm, I want to kill Publion but he's a sphectre. Silence Pub? why from your mouth to God's ear. He gets paid for being here. He's not going to pass up a pay check. Pub is the real reason this site exists. He daren't shut up. Pub is the apologist for Catholic sex abuse by minimising its existence. He's a piece of shit, as are those who supprt him.
Threating nay promising to kill such a lying phantom is no crime. It's a moral duty.
This is SNAP's swan song. Its last shot perhaps at disgracing victims by SNAP's pretending it acts for us, for our interests. As it besmurches who we are, morally because of SNAP's stupily willful behavior.
If you look at your own long list of SNAP errors above. I could treble that list. All of it done to make victims look bad. I can't think of one good thing SNAP has done for victims beside mentioning we exist. SNAP only uses victims to authenticate itself as being pro victims but when you add up SNAP's actions all you see are fuck ups. Legal fuck ups. Rather strange to have so many legal fuckups if you're a lawyers front.
Malcolm if I look up the word fool in the dictionary will I see a picture of you?
I don't want to intimidate P. I wish to annihilate it.
I need no vacation. I just dropped the facade of decency. Why be decent to a fascist? Why play the decency game if you are the only one playing decently? So I've gone for the death sentence for the murderers' accomplice here. All mockery and no respect equals death for me as a human here. I'm merely returning the "favor". Somebody get me a rope.
I’ll go down the list in the order they have been put up on the site.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 514PM:
‘Dan’s problem here was that he very much wanted to get back into the comments but couldn’t really deal with the points at issue. His solution? Eazy-peezy: the histrionic back-of-hand-to-forehead as he doth bleatfully intone in the whiney accents of Bethumped Virtue that he just couldn’t keep quiet any longer etc etc.
He then tries to spin it this way: he simply cawn’t see how anyone could think that Bill Donahue had “factually disputed anything at all”; after all, ‘Dan’ applied his prodigious capacities to the article (we are to infer) and all he could “read” was “excuses and defense” and so forth. Ya see, for ‘Dan’, anything that doesn’t agree with his dreck must automatically be “excuses and defense” (and thus, of course, “lies”) and so he really doesn’t have to pay any attention to them at all. Neato.
You're not a cult of liars because you don't agree with what I say or my beliefs, you're a cult of liars because your tendency to attempt to lie in order to push your agenda, and that is to cover-up for your cult's perverts and falsely accuse anyone exposing their ongoing filth. Like I've said, you're such blatant liars that you even lie and deny being liars. Bet you even think that you have the God of all knowledge fooled, fool. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 521PM:
Nor – having applied his prodigious capacities yet again – can he detect any “similar dynamic” between the Church and my extended reference to slavery.
Spelling it out for him: the historically interesting and novel aspect of slavery is not that it existed but that notable measures were taken to stop it / the historically interesting and novel aspect about the Church as a human institution afflicted (as are all human institutions) with some degree of abusiveness is not that it is thus afflicted but that notable measures were taken to stop it.
As for his considered historical opinion that slavery was nothing compared to abuse … readers may judge as they may.
It's far from necessary for a manipulating imbecile to spell out anything for me. If there is the 'similar dynamic' you propose, it would be that slavery has taken years to remedy and the catholic cult has done little or should I say just about nothing to remedy it's disgusting pedophilia and pederasty problems. Still handled in house, creeps protected and shipped to the Vatican and others retired to catholic whorehouses, to end their disgusting evil lives in peace and anonymity. Hypocritical nasty old creeps, concealed by the liars and deceivers of the cult. Yes, publiar, that includes you. servant
P.S. catholic whorehouses – not your normal whorehouses, but retirement homes for homosexual pedophile and pederast perverted clergy creeps.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 552PM:
Here ‘Dan’ has to find a way to preserve his shtick against my point that the Catholic Church is neither a) the only human organization to be afflicted with human failings nor b) the victim of its own clerical-celibacy protocols.
And thus here – and, it must be said, truly marvelously – ‘Dan’ stitches together the following bits:
First, he doesn’t want anyone thinking about either i) the historically omnipresent sexual failings of the human race or ii) any problems other religions have ( which problems cast into deep question the causative role of the celibacy protocols).
How then to keep up his shtick? His solution: in a bravura display of sly witlessness ‘Dan’ huffs and puffs that “most Protestant clergy went after teen girls” …
We're not talking about the "omnipresent sexual feelings of the human race". We're talking about a cult which claims to be Holy, Pure, Pius and God's True Church, when the only truth is that it's plagued with homosexual perverts who prey (not pray) on underaged little innocent boys and the liars and ecusers who protect the creeps. Quit comparing your cult to other cults or the secular world. You've already been judged guilty and Hell's Fire is lapping at your cult's doors. Christ's true followers are only waiting for their justice and freedom from you Accusers come Judgment Day. Do you even have any comprehension what the sting of a scorpion will feel like. Enjoy! Liars and Perverts!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 552PM:
And he has now taken the position that ‘going after’ “teen girls” isn’t anywhere near as bad as ‘raping’ and ‘molesting’ “little boys and babies” (babies of one or of either sex, one feels constrained to inquire). And does ‘going after’ “teen girls” not include to “rape and molest” them?
And – if we were to credit ‘Dan’ oft-noted and grossly problematic reading of Jesus bringing over a child to impress upon the disciples His point about ‘becoming like little children’ in matters of belief in God – would that pericope exclude the abuse of “girls”?
It appears that in order to keep his shtick going, ‘Dan’ now has to focus only on the abuse of males. Or perhaps ‘Dan’ has a particular concern in that specific area … for whatever reasons.
I believe it's your cult that has it's "focus … on the abuse of males", and usually young innocent flesh. Don't try to lay your nasty clinical projection on me, you deceiving perverted creep.
Way to nice a night to deal with your ignorance and garbage, but will return destroy your stupidity later.
Since you think you can put words in my mouth, I'll let you add the 'to or and' after return.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 552PM:
Then, trying to double-task his bit here, ‘Dan’ tosses in yet again his bit about why he doth “belong to none of the religious cults and phony false churches of the world”. But since that would – as he has said in prior comments – include what he describes as all “man-made” religions, we are back to ‘Dan’ being the oh-so-speshull Pope, Authorized Revealer, and Sole Member of the church-of-‘Dan’-in-the-bathroom-mirror.
Of course, this “man-made” bit actually leads to a nonsensical (except for ‘Dan’ own agenda and purposes) conclusion. Because if any religion is revealed by God to humans, then that human participation or building-upon that revelation automatically makes it “man-made”, so ‘Dan’ has thereby ruled out all of the world’s religions, or certainly those of a Judeo-Christian bent.
Leaving us – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – with only ‘Dan’ as the sole source of divine revelation, as channeled through his bathroom-mirror while he thumbs through this or that version of the Bible for those bits that serve his purposes and fuel his phantasms.
Thus doth he continue to preside over his religious version of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
I believe it's your phony false religious cult that harbors the "oh-so-speshull Pope, Authorized Revealer" (Mary 'Queen of Heaven'), and is full of Sole, not Souls, but a bunch of Fish-Heads.
They are "man-made" religions because they are based on the deception that they're Churches of Christ, when they are far from the true teachings of Christ our Savior. Like your cult for instance and it's false worship of Mother Mary, not Christ, because you're too cowardly to face God and his "Awe-Full" Son, as you have stated, little mommy's boy.
When you have nothing of importance to add to the conversation, you revert back to your bathroom-mirror mocking stupidity and your childish and immature "Mad Hatter's Tea Party" BS. Why don't you grow up, peewee.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 552PM:
But wait. There’s more.
He then reports that he is “not under the opinion” that the Catholic celibacy protocols have anything substantive to do with the ever-human abuse problems.
Rather it is ‘greed’ and ‘idolatry’ and ‘cowardice’ and being “sexually immoral and blatant liars” (Catholics, we recall, summoned the police and got him lugged and sent to a psychiatric facility … six times) that are the cause. Just how those elements that he has claimed play a causative role, ‘Dan’ doesn’t or can’t say. But you can take his word for it. And have a cup of his tea.
And – perhaps on some level aware of the diaphanous nature of his claims here – he then seeks to bolster his presentation with … more diaphanous claims, i.e. that when he was a kid “married catholic store owners were having sex with minor boys on the side” (no girls allowed?). This ‘Dan’ doth surely know, for his personal agenda tells him so.
Readers can consider it all as they will.
It takes quite some level of ignorance and stupidity to need an explanation of how your unbiblical rules of celibacy, or your plethura of sins of greed, idolatry, cowardice, sexual immorality and blatant lying "play a causitive role" in sending your cult into Hell's Fire. Apparently you understand little or just about nothing in regards to how sin can destroy the human being and eventually all of the deceived and their deceivers, especially when they falsely claim to be followers of God. Nothing but lying hypocrites destined for destruction.
And once again, when you have nothing concrete to add, you're back to promoting the lies of your fellow catholic lying hypocrites.You must be such a proud bunch of liars, for I know you're proud of all your lying garbage and nonsense, peewee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:
And now doth ‘Dan’ declaim upon the Great Commission pericope.
‘Dan’ doth allow as how Jesus did make “the statement in regard to Peter being the rock” (upon which, we further recall, Jesus said He would build His church) but – try to follow the bouncing ball now – “Christ was speaking of himself” (does ‘Dan’ mean ‘Himself’ here?).
What does this lead to? Jesus saying to Peter something like this: You are Peter and upon this rock meaning Me Myself Jesus I will build My church. The ball is not bouncing here; it is simply performing cartoon-like gyrations in mid-air.
Throughout the Bible Jesus is referred to as the Rock. So if you're dumb enough to think that a human is your rock, then that explains why you're stupid enough to go to Mary for your life, your sweetness, your hope and mercy. Good luck with that you deceived heathen idolater. servant
P.S. The only bouncing balls are the rocks in your head.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:
Slyly – or perhaps attempting to lard on a patina of studious and informed and judicious competence – ‘Dan’ hedges his mind-numbing bit here with the introductory “some claim” … but there are many such “some” claimants who also say things like ‘Jesus was really just an extra-terrestrial from the planet Wingding’ … and so what?
‘Dan’ then – and no surprises here – delves into his 3×5 pile to lard on more bits. Thus that Peter “didn’t resemble much of a rock when he denied knowing Jesus”. But that is a hugely decisive point: Jesus / in fulfillment of God’s Plan / chose humans who were almost guaranteed to be imperfect vessels of God’s Will and Plan.
That is the stunning mystery that we receive from the Gospel: God willingly entrusted His Will and Plan to fallible humans (and their inevitably “man-made” religion – to use ‘Dan’s bit here).
God may have "entrusted His Will and Plan to fallible humans", but never would he entrust it to pedophile perverts, idolaters, greedy pigs, blatant liars and deceivers, and your "man-made" cult qualifies for all of the above.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:
Thus too we see again his oft-repeated claim that Peter was “not the first catholic pope”. (Well, we have to infer that because the actual grammatical statement ‘Dan’ has made here actually indicates that ‘Dan’ is “denying that there is no way” Peter was the first pope.)
But then too, since Peter – according to the ‘Dan’-verse reading here – was hardly a perfect “rock”, then why did Jesus give Peter the Great Commission in the first place (presuming that Jesus wasn’t simply and impossibly referring to Himself as “the rock” in the pericope)?
As so very often, ‘Dan’ – let us recall Imelda Marcos’s shoe collection – simply has a bunch of bits to be admired but not otherwise examined; thus his bits, when tossed together, do not and cannot hold together in any rational way. Imagine that Imelda’s collected shoes were merely papier-mache and one could only admire them because if you tried to actually wear them they would quickly fall apart. Thus ‘Dan’s Biblical-bits shtick.
Have we forgotten that there are no popes in the Bible, no catholic church, no Mary worship, no Rosary, no Immaculate Conception of Mary, no Assumption of Mary, no statue worship or even making of statues, except for the wicked, and all of the other stupid lies of your phony cult. Wake up catholics, the cult promotes the beliefs that will lead you all into Hell. God will treat your false religion and it's statues and temples as if they're "paper-mache", when he tosses the whole mess into His Judgment Day bonfire. Run from their terrible lies and fate.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:
In further demonstration of that, ‘Dan’ then finds it tactically convenient to don the Wig of Righteous and Sympathetic Outrage to deliver the harrumphing bleat “how dare” I “claim the humbled Peter was in any way the first catholic pope”.
So … (follow the bouncing ball if you can) Peter is back to being the good guy in the story, unjustly bethumped by those who would respect and revere him as the first Pope.
Peter was – if the relevant pericope be taken as any guide – the “rock” upon whom Jesus would build His church. Though Peter would deny Christ and though Peter (at some unspecified point, according to ‘Dan’s bit) was “humbled”) yet Jesus chose him and gave him the power to “bind and loose sins” (which is nothing if not the overt delegation of a truly divine power and authority).
What we see here is simply ‘Dan’ trying to protect his own (fantasied) turf and title from not only Mary but Peter. That his various bits hold together no better than papier-mache in a rainstorm is something he would prefer not be noted or discussed.
Hey dummy, read Matthew 23:9 to find there are no titles for God's true followers, not Father, nor Rabbi, nor ever virgin immaculate Marys and most definitely no pope Peters. Stupid idolatry promoted by lying idolaters, catholic fairytales and fantasies. Houses full of holes expected to float on the Lake of Fire. Happy sailing.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:
But wait. There’s more.
In regard to the problem of Paul’s heart-felt admission of his ongoing sinfulness in Romans 7, ‘Dan’ – in the accents of some sly political press agent – merely bleats that I am “taking his statements completely out of context”.
Am I now? And just how might that be?
Well, ‘Dan’ doesn’t say. Rather, he merely points out the problems that his (and the fundie school of interpretation) would then have: if a) Paul has admitted to committing ongoing “evil” then b) how can the fundies (and ‘Dan’ who has lifted so much of their stuff) build their little house of Biblical blocks to the effect that once you have ‘accepted Jesus as your personal savior’ then you don’t and perhaps can’t sin ever again any more (although, recalling ‘Dan’s sly hedge, maybe you might make “the occasional mistakes”) … ?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:
I agree completely that Paul’s admission in Romans 7 creates abyssal and fatal problems for any simplistic fundie-type gambit. But that doesn’t constitute my taking the pericope “out of context”. Indeed, it demonstrates that it is the ‘Dan’-fundie bit that seeks to rip Paul “out of context” in order to clear their path to their whacko and preferred self-serving fantasies of ‘genuine and true Christians’ who cannot and do not sin ever again.
Thus the problem comes down to defining exactly what constitutes the ‘newness’ in Christ’s message and in His redemptive action. The ‘Dan’-fundie’ conclusion is that this ‘newness’ is defined by the believer no longer being capable-of committing or willing-to-commit sin.
I stated plain as day, "with Christ we become a new creature, turning our backs on our sinful lives and striving to live pure, clean changed lives. Perfect? No, but surely not insistent idolaters, greedy, disgustingly vile, sexually immoral perverts and let's not forget compulsive liars, like yourself." Let me emphasize "Perfect? No …"
Now publiar, as he always does, thinks he can manipulate and falsely translate what I stated to mean I'm trying "to clear [a] path to [my] whacko and preferred self-serving fantasies of 'genuine and true Christians' who cannot and do not sin ever again." He goes on further to state that, "The 'Dan'-fundie conclusion is that this 'newness' is defined by the believer no longer being capable-of committing or willing-to-commit sin."
Clear as day I stated "Perfect? No …". So who is the "whacko" and liar who thinks he can change whatever I say to fit his blatant lying agenda? He plays the same game, twisting and manipulating Biblical verse in order to achieve his deceiving purposes. How can you catholics believe and suck-up to this lying manipulator. He is evil, wicked and deceiving in all his excuses, denials and defending of all the deceptions of your church. Your cult's leaders care nothing for your souls and are only interested in stealing your money, as they teach you false interpretations of the Lord's Word. Get away from these false teachers and liars.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:
The Catholic conclusion is not that the saving act of Christ has magically lifted us out of the swamp of sin (somewhat like a rescue helicopter rounding up stray and lost hikers) but rather that we have been shown a path through the swamp that will keep us from straying off into its deeper abysses. But a muddy and mucky and demanding trek through the swamp is still the human lot (thus the power to “bind and loose” the inevitable sins).
‘Dan’ – indentured to the fundie impulse – needs more than that to bolster himself. And if the stern but saving reality of Christ’s and God’s Plan won’t do that, then he and the fundies will construct some idol-phantasm theory of their own that will make them more easily and quickly feel a whole lot better about themselves and serve their various purposes.
And ‘Dan’ (the 24th at 628PM) – having enswamped himself about as much as possible today – heads for the wings bleating slyly that he doth “believe” he hath “answered to enough of [my] garbage today”.
The catholic conclusion is a "muddy and mucky and demanding trek through the swamp", lacking Christ as their Savior and substituting Him with the human replacements of an ever-virgin mary, popes, saints and false fathers, powerless to forgive sins, and leading over a billion followers down the path to Hell. The only Christ they know is the one their ancestors murdered on the cross, bloodied trophies displayed proudly in their pagan temples of utter doom. They are happier turning to their false visions of Mary and think their unbiblical repeated prayers (Rosary) will guarantee them a place in Heaven, when they won't even take them to their made-up purgatory, but their idolatry will lead them straight into Hell's Fire.
On then to JR’s of the 24th at 126PM:
Still trying to talk himself out of the consequences of his murderous and self-exculpating fantasies he now calls me a “sphectre” (another Freudian slip; was he thinking of ‘sphincter’?) he will now claim that I am “paid for being here” (I am not); thus – doncha see? – that poor little bethumped and honest JR is being made a fool of by a paid professional Catholic shill … that sort of thing. So if his material looks like a pile of dubious dreck after I examine it, that’s not because JR’s stuff is dubious dreck; it’s because he is being victimized by some professional “paid” shill who just makes JR’s stuff look that way.
Readers may judge as they will. And might also assess the worth of JR’s bleated opinions as to what constitutes “a moral duty”.
Regular long-time readers will also recall the inconvenient (to JR’s agenda here) fact that this site existed well before I ever came to it.
And on the 24th at 135PM JR apparently has tried to bolster his previous bits with a ‘ghost’ riff. As to whether my material constitutes “sober reflection” or not, readers may also judge as they will.
JR, meanwhile, has consoled himself by declaring that he doth “LOL!” and “LMFAO!”. One cool dude is JR.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1014PM:
‘Dan’ apparently would like himself to be numbered among those who put “up anything significant”. Who can deny the remarkable usefulness of what ‘Dan’ has demonstrated in the stuff he puts up here?
Then – having noted accurately enough my position that ‘Dan’ “can’t demonstrate any ‘hypocritical lie[s]” that he claims the Church or I propagate – ‘Dan’ quickly – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – moves right along to something else more congenial to his mentation, i.e. he just starts spouting epithets in a multi-sentence bravura riff.
And thus thanks are due to ‘Dan’ for another remarkably useful and – what the hey? – “significant” demonstration of the value of this thoughts and mentation.
Well thank you very much for all your admiration, peewee. Maybe there's hope for you after all.
On then to JR’s of the 24th at 924PM:
Here JR doth bleatfully intone the demise of SNAP. This is simply too nice, one might think.
And one might be right in thinking that. Because the hook under the butterfly of JR’s niceness here is that SNAP has done nothing but make “victims” look bad. As we saw over time with JR’s own story here, it was not SNAP that made him look bad; it was his own stuff that did the job.
Puffing mightily that he could “triple” the list of SNAP’s errors or “stupily willful behavior”, JR then doth declaim and declare that he cawn’t “think of one good thing SNAP has done for “victims beside mentioning” that they exist.
SNAP was the front that helped the torties surf the wave (to the tune of billions of dollars) for almost all known allegants (JR being one of those allegants).
Continuing with my comment on Publican being a lying piece of shit.:
Publion is a lying piece of shit.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 924PM:
As I have said, SNAP’s mistake was to keep trying to surf after the wave had subsided to the point where the usual surfing gig was no longer very easy or even possible. It was a “lawyers front” but by definition it was not under the direct control of the lawyers (who were apparently shrewd enough to have backed off when they sensed that the Game was pretty much up).
Nor at this point do we see any of those torties now rushing to the defense of SNAP. They know a dead horse when they see one and they aren’t going to be risking themselves to try to claim it’s still alive and honest as the day is long (one thinks of the marvelous Monty Python skit where the pet shop clerk tries to claim that the recently-purchased dead parrot that the customer has brought back to the store is “just sleeping” and is still very much a righteous parrot that is still alive and not – as the purchaser claims – an “ex-parrot”).
The torties won’t be risking themselves to try to defend SNAP now. There are too many years of too many dirty tricks that might come out in serious litigation.
On then to P's Monty Python analysis: Close but no cigar.
The expired parrot is the Catholic church hierarchy. You, the fathiful, have been been sold a dead birdy.
They, your much kowtowed to Cardinals; Popes and Bishops, protected the priests that fucked your kids and then called your, religiously "morally" raised, sinned against children, liars.
Perhaps P projects the crimes he commits and supports here, libel, fraud, theft, the murder of the innocents, the hiding of accused priests in other states and countries, these crimes against humanity onto the victims themselves. A case of kill the messenger by claiming it was the messengers who are, in false fact, the "real" criminals? Accusing the very victims of being the victimizers. And you wonder why I offer to kill such an unholy ghost?
Your "dead parrot" analogy is perfect for your cult. It's truly a dead religion, but there are the brainwashed who believe it's "just sleeping". It shall come to a rude awakening on Judgment Day and then sent off into eternal punishment and damnation, where it's fire shall never be quenched and the worm shall never die. Kind of gives you something to look forward to, publiar.